*citation needed

Per SVB’s recent K, Net Interest Income: 4.065bn (after provisions) Non interest income: 1.728bn

Deposits fund the net interest income

I'd argue balance sheet insolvency is really the most colloquial definition insolvency. You can always sell assets (at a haircut of course) to evade cash flow insolvency (arguably that's closer to illiquidity really), but you can't do anything to get out of balance sheet insolvency except restructure your liabilities.

Alameda being in balance sheet insolvency would depend on their assets taking enough of a hit to wipe out the equity buffer.

To Doug's point the junk tokens are likely at book value on their balance sheet

>You can always sell assets (at a haircut of course) to evade cash flow insolvency

If the assets in question are marketable securities (stocks and bonds), traded commodities, or real estate, then that's generally true. If the asset is some shitcoin for which no real market exists, not so much.

> can always sell assets (at a haircut of course) to evade cash flow insolvency (arguably that's closer to illiquidity really)

For financial institutions, particularly those with short-term liabilities, illiquidity is insolvency. The initial liquidity depresses prices which marks down the balance sheet.

> To Doug's point the junk tokens are likely at book value on their balance sheet

The linked article in turn links to coin desk which writes

>> Also, token values may be low. In a footnote, Alameda says “locked tokens conservatively treated at 50% of fair value marked to FTX/USD order book.”

That suggests to me the unlocked coins are on the balance sheet at market value and the locked at a 50% haircut.

I don’t mean to be vulgar, but the net effect is one group of people (those in Bordeaux or those in Ruffec) had to pay the price of a longer commute to Paris. In the prior this advantaged those in Ruffec over those in Bordeaux. Why was that any more fair than this? And, aren’t more people being serviced by this (noting Ruffec’s population is far smaller than that of Bordeaux). As these are situations of symmetry you have to pick a side to bear it?

As I’m clearly missing the bigger picture, what do you find to be super offensive about this?

I read the first as the concat symbol applied to an iterable leads to string concated by the concat symbol.

I read the second as an iterable broken by split symbol leads to an iterable of the chunks.

It’s hard to remember what order to put things in, because the two methods follow opposite conventions. And that’s because this type of OO design has no obvious method of organization.

In the first case, I want to do something to a list: join it into a string. So, clearly, I need a list method? But no, I need to engage in some form of indirection; for some reason, I need to reach for a string method. Even if there is no string that I want to use as a delimiter. In that case, I need to use a string method on an empty string.

OK, I’ll play along. Now I want to take the string and split it into an array. Now that I’ve been educated, I know better than to try the sensible thing. Pre-enlightenment, I would have reached for a method applied to the thing that I wanted to transform. But now I know I should think backwards, and use a method applied to the delimiter. OOPs.

Here it is in Julia:

     julia> join([1 2 3], ", ")
     "1, 2, 3"


     julia> split("1, 2, 3", ", ")
     3-element Vector{SubString{String}}:
      "1"
      "2"
      "3"

Note how they are both functions. The data that they operate on is the first argument, in both cases. The optional second argument is the obvious next most important thing, the delimiter. Other optional arguments come after that. There is nothing to remember, because it makes sense.

The Python FAQ itself adresses this: https://docs.python.org/3/faq/design.html#why-is-join-a-stri...

You'll have to decide if you find that convincing. I understand your point and kind of wish I hadn't read this thread because I'm more torn than before.

Not convincing exactly, but I’m glad to know the thinking behind it, thank you. How are you torn?

That’s fair Lee. I think I’d accidentally stumbled upon the logic for .join acting on the separator rather than the iterable, but I do agree it’s awkward unless you’re trying to figure out why it is (which is poor design), and certainly not how most people think, especially with the inconsistency of split not acting on the separator.

I wasn't a fan at first (coming from Python), but I really like that it allows you to make expressions into statements (I'm sure there's more going on then just that, but it was pretty cool to see that if/match are generally expressions but if I don't want them to be, ";" can change that!).

I said this somewhere else, but you should think of the rent as ownership of the utility of the space for a fixed tenor. The only reason you can't easily trade it is most contracts restrict that, but removing that friction, it really isn't too different.

1) I'm not sure the magnitude of change is relevant to the analogy -- it doesn't alter the mechanics as much etc.

2) You can view renting as a sale -- the renter buying the utility of the space in exchange for a series of cash flows (but not paying for the economic upside/downside). Financial markets have the ability to separate components of assets (ex. voting vs non-voting shares) and value them; there's no reason to not do the same here.

In that structure a sublet is simply a rent on a rent.

As another responder says; a broker will close out the position for you and come after you for whatcha owe them.

I'm not quite sure I agree with your words here; generally speaking, net income is profit (accounting profit, to be precise -- there are other profits but we normally talk about accounting profit).

Secondly, revenue is super not meaningless! It's the capacity for you to be profitable! Amazon had 0 net income but were able to spend money on growth because they had revenue, and were able to classify their R&D as an expense, which pushed their profit/net income down. Without that, they would've been a positive net income/profit company who then reinvested net income/profits into R&D.

You can do all the expense classification shenanigans you want to to muck around with profit (ex. have profit & spend that on growth, or classify your growth as an expense and have no profit), but it's a lot harder to grow without having the money to put to growth. You'll get that of course in two ways -- increasing capital (equity/liabilities), or well, revenue!

EDIT: Had some typos so cleaned them up.

I wrote profitability exactly for this reason. Revenue in itself is just as meaningless as profitability, I agree. (That's what aggregates like NPV [net present value] and other indicators are for.)

RedHat is big, it has a lot of revenue, but it also has a looot of expenses too. Hence it's profitability is low. Whereas Amazon is a lot more profitable (even if it had no accounting profit), and that's exactly how it grew this big.

If RH were this profitable it would have probably also grown bigger too.

Of course some business models, sectors are truly niches, and you can't grow arbitrarily big. RH probably suffered from this to a degree. Selling Linux support is a niche market compared to selling almost everything that can be shipped in boxes. Of course both Amazon and RH are survivors of the early 2000s big boom-bust cycle, so probably there's a big survival bias and chance/luck at play here, so it's probably not right to say that RH should have expanded to bigger markets. (How come "AWS" is not a RH thing? It's likely that Amazon's extreme "black friday" scaling challenge it not unique to them, yet they were the ones able to successfully capitalize on this.)

Perhaps this would inform the discussion better, but how do you define "profitability" if not by accounting profit? There has to be a strict measure in order to make sense of things. As. I said before, the convention is to use profitability = accounting profit.

I judge by your statements of RedHat's expenses/revenue/profitability that you're defining it as operating profit? That's not a great measure to look at things: certain sectors can expense things and make a mess of it - like depreciation & R&D.

That's also a measure of the core operating portion of the business alone, it. doesn't include non-core portions, nor spending on investments/divestitures (although the latter should show in pro formas or future reports. Also to be fair that would never be counted in a profit definition, but judging from what you find important, I suspect you would prefer to include it? ).

NPVs are calculated by Free Cash Flow streams discounted at whatever your discount rate.